Editing Iconology (section)

==In contrast to iconography==
Erwin Panofsky defines iconography as "a known principle in the known world", while iconology is "an iconography turned interpretive".<ref>Andrew Tudor, ''Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film''. New York 1974, p.115.</ref> According to his view, iconology tries to reveal the underlying principles that form the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical perspective, which is modulated by one personality and condensed into one work.<ref>[http://tems.umn.edu/pdf/Panofsky_iconology2.pdf Erwin Panofsky, ''Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance''. Oxford 1939.]</ref> According to Roelof van Straten, iconology "can explain why an artist or patron chose a particular subject at a specific location and time and represented it in a certain way. An iconological investigation should concentrate on the social-historical, not art-historical, influences and values that the artist might not have consciously brought into play but are nevertheless present. The artwork is primarily seen as a document of its time."<ref>Roelof van Straten, ''An Introduction to Iconography: Symbols, Allusions and Meaning in the Visual Arts''. Abingdon and New York 1994, p. 12.</ref>

Warburg used the term "iconography" in his early research, replacing it in 1908 with "iconology" in his particular method of visual interpretation called "critical iconology", which focused on the tracing of motifs through different cultures and visual forms.<ref>[[Michael Hatt]] and Charlotte Klonk, "Iconography - iconology: Erwin Panofsky". In ''Art History: A Critical Introduction to Its Methods''. Manchester University Press, 2006, p. 98.</ref> In 1932, Panofsky published a seminal article, introducing a three-step method of visual interpretation dealing with (1) primary or natural subject matter; (2) secondary or conventional subject matter, i.e. iconography; (3) tertiary or intrinsic meaning or content, i.e. iconology.<ref>Erwin Panofsky, "Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung von Werken der bildenden Kunst." ''Logos'', Vol. 21 (1932), pp. 103-119.</ref><ref>[http://tems.umn.edu/pdf/Panofsky_iconology2.pdf Erwin Panofsky, ''Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance''. Oxford 1939.]</ref> Whereas iconography analyses the world of images, stories and allegories and requires knowledge of literary sources, an understanding of the history of types and how themes and concepts were expressed by objects and events under different historical conditions, iconology interprets intrinsic meaning or content and the world of symbolical values by using "synthetic intuition". The interpreter is aware of the essential tendencies of the human mind as conditioned by psychology and world view; he analyses the history of cultural symptoms or symbols, or how tendencies of the human mind were expressed by specific themes due to different historical conditions. Moreover, when understanding the work of art as a document of a specific civilization, or of a certain religious attitude therein, the work of art becomes a symptom of something else, which expresses itself in a variety of other symptoms. Interpreting these symbolical values, which can be unknown to, or different from, the artist's intention, is the object of iconology.<ref>Victor Ljunggren Szepessy, "Panofsky - Iconology and Iconography". In ''The Marriage Maker: The Pergamon Hermaphrodite as the God Hermaphroditos, Divine Ideal and Erotic Object''. MA thesis, University of Oslo 2014, pp.13, 16.</ref> Panofsky emphasized that "iconology can be done when there are no originals to look at and nothing but artificial light to work in."<ref>Michael Ann Holly, ''Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History''. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1984, p.14.</ref>

According to [[Ernst Gombrich]], "the emerging discipline of iconology ... must ultimately do for the image what linguistics has done for the word."<ref>E.H. Gombrich, ''Reflections on the History of Art: Views and Reviews'', ed. Richard Woodfield. Oxford 1987, p.246.</ref> However, [[Michael Camille]] is of the opinion that "though Panofsky's concept of iconology has been very influential in the humanities and is quite effective when applied to Renaissance art, it is still problematic when applied to art from periods before and after."<ref>[http://art.arizona.edu/downloads/Garcia,_Dominique_Writing_Sample.pdf Dominique E. Garcia, "Nationalistic Iconography and 'Anti-Iconology' of the Aztec Coatlicue Sculpture"]</ref>